In re G (A Child): CA 20 Jun 2000

G had died. It was then discovered that he had suffered serious abuse before his death (though not actually causing it). M, wanting the return of her other child, now appealed from a fact finding judgment which had failed to identify which of them was responsible.
Held: ‘the judge gave an impeccable self-direction. She recognised the convenience of coming to a clear conclusion, but, in conscientiously weighing up the evidence, she came to a conclusion which she appreciated was unpalatable, that the evidence was not sufficient on the balance of probabilities to exclude the mother and positively, on the balance of probabilities, to identify the father.
In my judgment, there is no merit in the question of law and the judge did not err in her self direction or in her application of the standard of proof to the case with which she was dealing.’


Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss


[2000] EWCA Civ 503, [2001] 1 FCR 97, [2001] 1 FCR 97




England and Wales


See AlsoIn re G (A Child) CA 29-Nov-2000
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoKent County Council v G and others HL 24-Nov-2005
A residential assessment order had been made under the 1989 Act in care proceedings. When the centre recommended a second extension of the assessment, the council refused, saying that the true purpose was not the assessment of the child but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.235323